General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy am I always reminded here on DU that women can be abusive just like men?
Look---we're all pretty dang smart here. Telling us that women have been known to abuse men is kind of a no duh statement.
There is no one here arguing that it's never happened.
What bugs the shit out of me is how these no duh statements/posts pop up when there is a serious case being discussed like the Ray Rice incident.
Is it an attempt to minimize the issue of male abuse against women?
Again we get it---women can abuse men. But if you think for a minute that it's just as bad for men as for women, well then you probably think it's just as bad for White people than people of color.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I have no idea what's in the mind of members who are saying these things, but I highly doubt that it's an attempt to minimize the issue.
Many more are hurt, men and women, black and white, than are known to have been hurt and dismissing or minimizing the hurt done to any one of them is wrong.
Perhaps some of the members have been hurt.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but men raising the "men can be abused, too" discussion, in a discussion of women being abused, certainly shift attention from the matter being discussed to themselves.
randys1
(16,286 posts)direction of the conversation.
Yes they do, and yes sometimes WOMEN hit men and hard.
Will never forget Paul Mooney's "Godfather Of Comedy" show where he described an incident as follows
I didnt know about the incident when I heard the routine and he did make a point of mentioning Rihanna's from the islands and those island WOMEN are crazy mean and scary.
Now it was a funny routine and to hear him turn the whole thing around like that was new to me and I admit I was laughing
It probably wasnt funny at all, nor was this other incident with Ray Rice funny, and yes I guess she spit on him or something.
Doesnt matter, any "person" hitting another person, where the hitter is 10 times stronger than the hittee, regardless of the sex of either, is wrong and a crime.
Any so called man who hits a WOMAN unless said WOMAN is bigger and stronger than him and he is doing it in self defense, is an ass.
There has to be ZERO TOLERANCE for violence against WOMEN, period.
next?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that is a different discussion, for another time, i.e., in a different thread!
EEO
(1,620 posts)
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I feel that some of it might come from a very sad place, if these posters were or are, themselves, victims of abuse.
I sort of wanted to say that in my reply, I wish now that I had.
Take care.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Casting it in the most positive light, I have no doubt ... some of it might be expressing the pain of their personal experience.
But:
1) We must admit that some of it is coming from that "What about me" place, and/or just that "It happens to men, too" place.
2) Regardless of the place it's coming from, it has no place in a discussion of women being abused. It is just as easy to start a different thread.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)OTOH, I think there are a few posters, or there have been, who deliberately respond in those ways to stir shit.
I'm glad that our subthread isn't a distraction but is responsive to the OP, which asks the question.
Take care, 1StongBlackMan, I'm off to the doctor.
Scout
(8,624 posts)
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)My question is, does the OP take umbrage with that too? Isn't it the same thing?
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Women lack societal power. Becuase of the patriarchy they cannot really control men. Domeatic abuse requires power and control, so even when a women does strike a man, its not actually domestic violence. Therefore, until true equality is achieved, the female on male domestic violence is a non issue that need not be addressed.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Disgusting
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Veilex
(1,555 posts)I think you've mistakenly set foot into the wrong website.
Either that, or you need a serious re-education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
There are others, such as 1strongblackman, who explain it better than me. Basically, racism requires privelege, since it requires a syatemic, societal pattern of oppression. Thusly, a power majority cannot be a victim of racism.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)Racism is independent of whatever majority is "in power". All racism requires is the belief that your race is better than someone else's.
That's it.
A great example is the Hawaiian term Haole (Pronounced: How-lee). It is a pejorative term that describes foreigners... specifically white folks.
I was called a Haole and my friend was called a wet-back, by a Hawaiian native, while we stationed in Hawaii.
Race based invectives, such as this, are symptomatic of racism... and don't require anything more that the otherization and the placing of one's own race above another.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)A disabled person, even if they are a man and white, is lower on the totem pole than an able-bodied anything.
The disabled get bad treatment from all sides, every gender, every ethnicity, every orientation.
lululu
(301 posts)That's just nuts. Crazy talk. You might as well say Blacks can murder Whites because Blacks have less power.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Its still battery and illegal and not right. Its just to be equivated to domestic violence perperuated by men.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)You are more than a bit off kilter with your ideas of what does and doesn't constitute racism or domestic violence.
This would be why we have dictionaries... to maintain proper definition in spite of outlier attempts to confuse the issue.
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)
Veilex
(1,555 posts)Scout
(8,624 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Sorry, you and OP had jack to do with it, it appears. In fact, I assume the OP is at least partially addressing it.
Scout
(8,624 posts)independent of an OP about women.
edit to add: on Tuesday at 9:17pm you said "someone did today" ... now you say back on Monday night ... no link to a specific thread in either post ... which is it, Tuesday or Monday?
Psephos
(8,032 posts)Wholeheartedly agree!
Though I think in this instance, what is being addressed is context. When bringing up that "women can be abusers too" in a thread showcasing something unrelated to women causing abuse (such as women being abused), it becomes a bit of a derailment from the topic (and might also be seen as a way to detract from the severity of the issue). That might not be the intent of the person posting that style of comment... but, even so, it often will be viewed this way.
In cases like this, I think the best way to handle it, is to simply acknowledge that, while, Yes, women can be abusers too, that isn't really germane to the topic at hand... and then suggest getting back on point.
At least, that'd be my suggestion. Might not work for everyone. But may be worth a shot.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...to mention it, or is it the nature of debate that another side pops up occasionally? Out of all the guys I have been acquainted with, only one says his wife abused him. Should he be invisible?
These are valid questions.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)On the one hand they are valid questions, of course. But the timing of them is problematic.
It makes sense that reading about a story of abuse would make someone think of their own experience with abuse and try to come to terms with it. But it's also true that it creates the perception of equivalency and that equivalency doesn't really exist.
Anytime a person is abused - no matter what gender or race the abuser or the abused are, that's awful, and we should all be mindful and sympathetic towards the abused while requiring justice be done to the abuser.
But we live in a society where males and whites and particularly white males have more power than woman or racial minorities. It is awful when a woman abuses a man, but, in certain parts of our society, we have whole mechanisms in place to protect a man who abuses a woman. So that when a man abuses a woman, and it become a big news story, it shines a light on two problems - the awful problem of abuse, but the equally awful situation of a society that chooses to protect a male abuser.
Or that's how I see it.
Bryant
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)Veilex
(1,555 posts)Frequently, timing is everything!
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)someone posts something about violence against women. Then, inevitably, it becomes "but what about the men? Men are victims, too!" It's hard to view that as anything other than an attempt to deflect and distract from the overwhelming majority of incidents of male on female violence. If there is legitimate concern about the effects of violence on men perpetrated by women, then why is that almost never brought up independently and ahead of violence against women?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...in that context it isn't a valid counter argument, though there are always those who will try to use it anyway.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)unless they are part of a discussion centered on more socially acceptable victims of abuse.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Yuk Yuk....
And has a sad when called on it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023635729#post26
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023635729#post34
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)but feel free to lump em together if you want!
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I think you know how that would go, and rightfully so.
But I guess because this poor sap didn't use his manly superpowers to fly or Hulk up and avoid death from his "just foolin' around" much physically weaker wife, fuck him, eh?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)abuse, generally people here are very very supportive. As opposed to the "hey what about men" derailing thing that goes on all the time here- in threads about women- THEN they are often asked to start their own darned thread/ stop derailing etc.
Anyway, that has been my observation.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)and it is the "not always" part that is the problem.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and it was gruesome, but weird little news story. I agree people joked more about it because it was the *much weirder and rare* scenario where a woman killed a man. We are all aware the reverse is MUCH more common. It was a bizarre crime, and people made tasteless jokes.
It was not laughing at a man experiencing abuse- not even close.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)"We are all aware the reverse is MUCH more common"- absolutely, it is... and we need to work toward eliminating this issue... however, frequency does not diminish the seriousness of the issue. People seem to forget that those being abused, tend to perpetuate the cycle. Men who have experienced abuse (which tends to be mostly from other men... usually fathers), have a high tendency to be abusers themselves.
"It was not laughing at a man experiencing abuse- not even close." No... it was laughing at a violent act that killed a man...and somehow that's supposed to be better? 
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)A male posted a thoughtful thread about his abuse at the hands of his wife. With the exception of one poster, who appears to be a bit unhinged, everyone else was supportive and comforting. No laughter going on at all.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Especiallly on DU. People will bend over backwards to be as clear as possible that they think that is totally wrong for women to abuse men because men can be victims, too. The threads will go over much better for that reason.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)If the problem of violence against men is so widespread, then why isn't the topic being brought up independent of threads relating to violence against women.
You would think that if men/activists were so concerned about it, they would start their own movement instead of merely reacting to the violence against women movement.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Yes ... Just as no one feels compelled to discuss instances of animal abuse, or many of the world's other issues. I man being abused has no relevance in a discussion of women being abused, other than to distract.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)I really think this depends on context. If its a "women abuse men too" comment, then yeah, that's distractive.
However, if a guy offers empathy by way of explaining he's been through abuse as well, and understands a little of that experience, that's a bit different.
Its very contextual.
Thank you for this post.
Iggo
(47,549 posts)Yes.
kcr
(15,315 posts)I think some people who respond to them do so in good faith, but really, it isn't a zero sum game. It's okay to focus on violence against women and recognize the scope of the problem.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)1) Some people genuinely think this is a new concept and must be pointed out in the interest of fairness.
2) Some people get defensive when, for whatever reason, they feel that discussion of male violence is somehow impugning them.
I will leave "whatever reason" up to the reader to infer.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Can men be victims of domestic abuse? Yes. Is domestic abuse of men bad? Yes. Does domestic abuse of men come anywhere near the levels of domestic abuse committed against women? No.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)thank you for helping me to not make DU suck.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)You will find the same posters that make sexist posts also deny White Privilege exists and say slavery wasn't so bad.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)They also embrace free trade and lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)IMHO
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
mercuryblues
(14,530 posts)a problem with it. It is something that needs to be discussed.
The problem comes in when there is an OP where women are the victim of DV, and the responses degrade to "what about the men" as an obvious attempt to derail/minimize the discussion, instead of learning from it.
It also makes me SMH, when comments are made that imply a certain set of posters (usually the feminists) will object to and minimize a male discussing his experience with DV in an OP.
And this from El Bryanto from above:
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and to try and make a false equivalence of "men are victims too", especially after events like this is really sad. We just shouldn't try to do that. It's a real problem for many women and we need to see how we can rectify this.
Now, there are perhaps other things that should be looked at, like societal pressures on men to be "tough" in order to be held in high regard, that can lead to these situations for some misguided individuals that channel "being tough" in horribly wrong ways.
And perhaps there are many cases were there are mental abuse issues that go back and forth and one could argue that these might be more "equivalent", but that is a completely different discussion that should be done in different contexts, and should not be used to defuse the horrible tragedies of domestic violence against women.
Men right now should look for their feminine side and reach out to women around them they know to help them feel comfortable around them, and not feel like so many men in society are a threat to them. Then those men who are abusive towards women while "being tough" will stand out more as the problems that they are and we can perhaps be more able to do something about it in situations where things could get out of hand.
There's a time and place for many different discussions about men and women relationships, and perhaps we should have more thoughtful threads at other times, etc. but to try and minimize the large problem of male violence towards women after events like this in these topics of threads is not one of them.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)The part I disagree with is: "to try and make a false equivalence of "men are victims too" - This isn't a false equivalence. It is a fact.
I think you're confusing equivalency with frequency. Victimization is no less or more wrong, regardless of who it happens too. Its just flat out wrong.
You were spot on, however, that men are by far the more frequent abuser... not just of women... but of other men too.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)But that it is a big problem for both in terms of frequency, severity, and an area of concern I think is a false (or at least an extreme) equivalency. I speak as a man here too. I think we need to recognize that most of the time men don't have to worry when going out on the town of being beaten up by women they try to associate with. It's far more of a real problem that women have to be concerned with when they meet men, or with men in many cases that they know as well.
For the men out there that are victims, we shouldn't be minimizing their experience either (and for many of them we should also recognize that sometimes it is even harder for them than for women to publicly acknowledge what they've experienced), but I think to dwell on that, when we see the huge amount of problems of women experiencing violence on a daily basis I think is distracting us from a large problem that needs a strategy to be dealt with.
Perhaps another thought here, in addition to men trying to show the feminine side of themselves and help women feel more comfort and understanding. Perhaps women that want less violence from men can reach out to many men out there that may at times in extreme cases be called "wimps", or not the kind that's going to go out and be tough towards others to prove their manhood. Not to every guy of course, but to show to many men they like, feel they know and trust well enough that they don't have to be a "tough stud" to get a woman's attention at times and be more rewarded for just being nice and sensitive at times. I know many women already do this, but perhaps go the extra mile a few more times to set a newer model of manhood and interaction that is respected.
We worship athletes (especially male athletes in society). Most athletes are fine and decent people, but by using that as a measuring stick of acceptability, many of those who aren't look more to emphasize their "toughness" that accelerates to incidents like the one we're talking about because society rewards it over just being decent human beings in many cases.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)In your reply, your first paragraph seems to disagree, and then, your second paragraph agrees with me.
Your thoughts seem a bit scattered.
I wont reply regarding your last two paragraphs, as they're outside the scope of my previous comment.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,922 posts)A woman who takes a swing at a guy is less likely to inflict physical damage than the other way around. Still people should not beat on eachother.
LiberalArkie
(15,714 posts)Parents did not understand why I put up such a fight when I was going to have to visit them during the summer.
I remember when I turned around 60 upon hearing she had died.. "Ding Dong the witch is dead".. Such a load lifted from me. My aunt and Grandmother were both dead. Probably why I could never get close to a woman. Such a mental block.
Enough said.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Did you ever try to tell them why you didn't want to go there, or were you afraid it wouldn't matter what you said? Or that you would be blamed for their behavior?
valerief
(53,235 posts)Here's a question. If women were bigger than men (yes, on average, because we KNOW there are exceptions), would women abuse men the way men abuse women (again, on average) now? I tend to think not. Why not? Women just don't have the hormones for physical fighting (yet again, on average).
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I don't disagree with you, but I know I've read research that suggests that it is more societal pressures than biological that cause abuse. For instance, I think I remember reading a study that concluded that when women are in positions of power (CEO, manager, etc.) rates of abuse tend to parallel those of men in power. However, since there are far more men in power right now, rates of men abusing women are far higher. Not to mention that the patriarchal society we have is just another layer of power that all men have that can make them feel abuse is accepted, or at least ignored.
I tend to think it's not biological, and maybe that's wishful thinking on my part, but it's because I want to believe that men can be taught, and we can change the problems we have now. The idea that it's biological seems to imply all men have a propensity to violence that can't be changed, which I (want to) disagree with.
Of course, if there's evidence for abuse being of a biological cause, please let me know.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Read Dinnerstein's "The Mermaid and the Minotaur." (Caution: she's wordy and pedantic.) She presents an important argument regarding the socialization of our children.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)I presume you mean testosterone? You don't need any particular hormone for physical fighting...
its a pernicious myth that truly needs to die.
Here's a study to shed some light. 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm
valerief
(53,235 posts)Veilex
(1,555 posts)I encourage you to actually read the article I posted.
valerief
(53,235 posts)I know what I see in castrated animals.
BTW, wasn't 2009 when they started promoting Testosterone products for Low T?
http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2014/09/04/fda-lowdown-on-low-t-drugs-little-evidence-to-support-widespread-use/
But maybe it's not testosterone (which you brought up; I just said hormones). We have other hormones.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)The study does indeed address aggression.
"But maybe it's not testosterone" - In this you'd be correct. It is personal choice, and lifestyle. Hormones do not dictate how you act or react... they can sometimes influence... but never dictate.
People who are assholes... are so because they choose to be... they don't get the advantage of saying "The devil/testosterone/whatever made me do it".
Its a choice.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)However, if that is insufficient for you, then I'll provide a few more studies for your perusal.
http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/1/167.short
http://www.tonymaddocks.co.uk/hormones_in_context.html
This last one is important, specifically because it deal with Testosterone in women. It shows a lack of increased violence in women in spite of being treated with Testosterone... thereby further debunking the myth that Testosterone is the cause of aggression.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378512213000121
Also, since you mentioned "Low T", I find it important to point out that most people who have lower testosterone levels, gain NO benefit by increasing those levels. There are some situations where Testosterone treatment is of potential benefit... but the whole "Low T" marketing scheme is largely that: a scheme.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)Both men and women have Testosterone. It is a very important, and all too vilified, hormone.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Veilex
(1,555 posts)Testosterone ? aggression.
It really is that simple.
randome
(34,845 posts)The guy at the comic book shop I used to frequent 'confessed' to me about how abusive his mother was. It happens. I agree that some want to detract from the idea that men are the vast majority of abusers but when the conversation starts to paint men in general as abusive, that brings out the counterpoints about women also being abusers.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)"They both do it."
Right up there next to "There was a record snowfall in Colorado last night so global warming theory is bullshit."
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Spot on, JR!
It's a classic distractivist technique designed to put people on the defensive and suck the air out of an argument.
Like having to explain that opposing the illegal Iraq invasion doesn't mean you idolize Saddam Hussein.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...and both at fault for the problems with our government. 
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Veilex
(1,555 posts)However, men are the majority offenders.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)It is all part of an attempt to brand condemnation of male on female violence as an example of "female privilege" or "misandry". Whenever I've looked at A Voice for Men or Red Pill reddit this sort of belittling of the violence issue is discussed as a valid tactic.
JohnnyRingo
(18,628 posts)When a man attacks a woman it's a case of a big bad man wailing on a poor defenseless little girl, but when the roles are reversed, men are asked what they did to provoke her. I know because I lived it with my 1st wife over 35 years ago.
First, I'll make an admission that no woman can offer after a domestic violence incident, I did indeed provoke her ire. Though we were both unfaithful throughout our relationship, she was what a psychologist later told me was a "weapon grabber" when she felt scorned. Perhaps it was to augment her petite stature, but she would always grab an equalizer when she felt a rampage coming on.
Her favored weapon, at least in the beginning, was the old black telephone people had in those days. Though she seldom made contact, I recall many a time when that big chunk of plastic went sailing past my head and hit the wall behind me. The phone company had to come to the house so often to reinstall the phone they eventually added a 30 foot cord. The phone guy, who knew what was happening, joked with me that I better watch myself now that the cord wouldn't slow the phone's travel across the living room. It would be years before we could afford a safer Princess phone.
Another time when I arrived home late from the night shift, she came at me with a large Crescent Wrench. Swinging wildly, she managed to take a chunk out of my arm that left a scar that remains nearly 40 years later. In that case I disarmed her but she turned back to my toolbox and grabbed the claw hammer. As she raised it above her head I pushed her backward causing her to trip over the toolbox and breaking her arm. The fight was over at that point and we made the trip to the ER. Close friends who knew us both understood what had happened, but I was scorned by so many others who assumed I was the the big bad biker who injured this little 5'5" 110lb angel for no good reason.
Another time she laid me up for two weeks when she grabbed a .22 rifle from the gun rack and swung it Davy Crockett style down across my knees as I sat on the couch. Though I don't recall why I didn't see it coming, the rifle broke in half at the stock and I was on crutches for the rest of the month. Friends laughingly ribbed me with Alamo jokes for months because of that. Once when a neighbor called the police they were defusing the situation when she struck me in the back of the head right in front of him. The cop informed her that he witnessed that and could press charges... if he wanted to.
During our 17 years together there were so many more incidents that I've forgotten many. At a recent family gathering where we both were present, our oldest son brought up the story of how she sprayed me in the face with a can of Raid. He laughed as he explained how it frightened him so that he behaved himself for weeks out of fear of what she could do to him. I still don't remember that particular event, but the point is that it wasn't related as a woman on man crime, but a bit of anecdotal family history. I could go on with many more incidents, but you get the idea.
My 1st and I are good friends to this day and share 7 wonderful grandchildren. We maintain communication and do our best to keep the family together, but in our case she wasn't seen as abusive or dangerous, she just had a lot of "spirit" or "passion". No one would ever write an article in DU asking why men stay in such a volatile relationship nor would anyone claim that this is an epidemic where women grab a dangerous object to even the odds in an argument. Instead, society demands that men should avoid making the little woman so angry that she causes bodily injury.
I want to mention again that I still don't harbor any ill will toward her. These things happened in part because I provoked her with my actions and she did horrible things as well, but I never raised a hand to strike her. Through it all we still loved one another and raised three boys who are non-violent adults. Though at 62 she still harmlessly threatens our 6'5" son with an ass kicking now and then, no one considers her a domineering psychopath. Had the roles in the above narrative been reversed, she'd be a no good woman beater deserving of a lengthy prison sentence and my forgiveness considered a chronic fault. That's the double standard.
I don't expect sympathy or advice, I just don't like that men are portrayed as the root of all evil in cases of DV here. Some read like a newsletter from the Men Haters Club with provocative titles slanted toward female victims. They aren't articles exploring the damage caused by domestic violence so much as a one sided demand that men answer for the crimes they commit toward women. I understand that the bulk of these posts come from people in the HoF group, but they conveniently only tell half the story from a perspective that men are bullies and women are physically helpless against them. They obviously never met my ex.
DV is a serious social problem that deserves more than a one size fits all solution of "protecting the women" against abusive men like Ray Rice. Near here a man went home earlier this week to find his children shot to death and his wife dead with the gun next to her body. Cases like that are indeed rare, but men do not have a monopoly on violence in the home. Unfortunately, society in general considers gender as the difference between a simple marital spat and a hate crime. If a woman strikes a man in an elevator the likely response from onlookers would be "feisty one, isn't she?".
sibelian
(7,804 posts)And I hope that some reading this thread will understand what you are saying and make an honest attempt to digest its implications.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's good to hear from one of the few 'experts' on the subject. 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)What she did to you was no more excusable than what Ray Rice did.
On the other hand, how many women could knock a man unconscious with a single punch? And in how many marriages is the man the abuser vs. the woman? This is why most of the attention is on women victims. Most of the victims of physical violence are women.
JohnnyRingo
(18,628 posts)My point, in case you overlooked it, is the plethora of posts here that describe men as ogres who perpetrate violent acts against women without addressing the root problem and what happens when love turns to hate.
It can be frustrating for me to read post after post about what bastards men are when I know first hand that it's not necessarily a gender based issue. To say I'm excusing an act of violence by pointing out the base problem seems goal oriented on your part.
The fact that it may seem overwhelmingly man on woman violence can partly be attributed to an understandable reluctance to report. You have to admit, if my ex had lied to police and accused me of breaking her arm in a pre-emptive attack, the court would have weighed my story vs hers and probably found me guilty. Regardless the chunk of flesh missing from my forearm, it was a case of a big shaggy biker against the petite and cute hippie chick. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to see you on the jury. It's better not to take it legal.
Your view that few "women could knock a man unconscious with a single punch" is how society sees every DV case. Men are supposed to be able to take a good wallop while women are perceived as the weaker sex. The stereotype goes back ages to the embittered woman waiting angrily at the doorway with a rolling pin. Her philandering husband obviously did something to deserve it. Though times have changed somewhat, calling the police in such a case is generally speaking futile.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)This is not because there is an "understandable reluctance to report."
Of course there are some men like you who might not report an attack by a significant other. But men are far more likely to assault their partners than to be assaulted, just as they're more likely to commit violent crimes, period.
http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/Gender_and_Crime
In general, women tend to have relatively high arrest rates in most of the same crime categories for which men have high arrest rates. For example, rates of homicide are small for both sexes (about 17 offenders for every 100,000 males, about 2 offenders per 100,000 females), as compared to larceny rates, which measure about 800 offenders per 100,000 males and 380 offenders per 100,000 females. Women commit violent acts once for every 7.15 times that a man commits a violent act.Women are less likely than men to use a weapon such as a blunt object, knife, or firearm in the commission of a crime: 15% of women do while 28% of men do. Women are more likely than men to have had a prior relationship with their victims, 62% versus 36% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001).
Veilex
(1,555 posts)But only because there is a new BJS.gov report out:
Eight in ten murderers who killed a
family member were male. Males were
83% of spouse murderers and 75% of
murderers who killed a boyfriend or
girlfriend.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf
Stuff like this is why I advocate women and children getting into martial arts...
and a serious need to jettison garbage like the cult of machismo.
valerief
(53,235 posts)kcr
(15,315 posts)Just to get an idea of what we're dealing with.
JohnnyRingo
(18,628 posts)I've been on the other side of the DV fence and society demanded that I take my lumps like a man. I guess pointing that out is offensive and you choose to pigeonhole me as hating women. Maybe that's one of the reasons men are so reluctant to report cases.
I admit I get tired of countless posts from DU feminists who portray men as the root of all evil, whether it's domestic violence and sex crimes, or diagnosing all men who have sports cars, fast motorcycles, or firearms, as having a small penis. I usually suffer through it and ignore the double standard, but I know what would happen if I posted that women who buy a lot of shoes do it to compensate for having small boobs. I'd never say that, but I'd be banned all ways to Sunday.
You demonstrated clearly what happens when a man points out the other side of the DV issue here. Deny, minimize, and counter attack.
kcr
(15,315 posts)because you pointed out that society demands you take your lumps like a man? No. I think it's your blaming that aspect on feminists and calling us the Hear Us Roar crowd.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)the anger you might be feeling (justifiably) toward your abuser to all women, particularly feminists. The overall tone I get from your post is anger, even though you seem to have mellowed a bit.
After 35 years of advocacy for survivors of relationship violence, I have this to say to you: relationship violence, like racism, is a difficult pill for some men to swallow, because, overwhelmingly, white males are the ones who've been responsible for these behaviors. Those white men who are NOT racist and who do NOT abuse are taxed with the legacy of these patriarchal socio-cultural precepts, which relegate women and children to a 'second-class' citizenry and men to the role of abuser/racist. This is difficult to hear, and difficult not to personalize.
And, in your paragraph wherein you state:
First, I'll make an admission that no woman can offer after a domestic violence incident, I did indeed provoke her ire.
I think you might benefit from knowing that many survivors, who are mostly women, will do things to provoke their abuser. Please see Dr. Lenore Walker's "The Battered Woman" for a cogent, detailed description of why, but here's my synopsis: survivors learn early on that provoking an attack will end the "walking on eggshells" period, and will initiate some variation of the "honeymoon" period, when the abuser acts apologetic and remorseful. More importantly, provoking an attack (at least early in the abusive relationship) will motivate the abuser to refrain from abusing (at least for a while). Countless survivors have said to me, "I just wanted to get it (the pending attack) over with, so I didn't have to wonder when it was coming." As the abuse escalates, however, the assaults happen more frequently and become more dangerous (deadly), and the honeymoon period often disappears.
Another thing you have in common with the survivors for whom I've done advocacy is your adjuration that you're 'still friends' with your abuser. Survivors struggle with continuing to identify with their abusers. Countless survivors have said to me, "If I could flip a light switch to turn off my love for him (her), I'd go around flipping every light switch I could find!" Many have said that this is because they are still in love with the compassionate, trustworthy initial version of their abuser before the abuse--their "knight in shining armor" with whom they fell in love.
I have advocated for only two male survivors, and countless female survivors (some were lesbians, so their abusers were female). I have no difficulty acknowledging that men can be--and are--survivors of relationship violence. I have long adjured that we need resources to help batterers learn healthy, non-threatening conflict resolution skills, but we've yet to see a sea change in our society that will mean that relationship violence is a long-ago, archaic issue. Until then, men will continue to be taxed with the knowledge that most people who batter are men.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I think, in general, it's partly a subconscious attempt to minimise and partly a kind of "me too" reaction. I think part of it also comes from the same place that, when I criticise the USA, responds by pointing out all the things the UK has done wrong. And finally, because those talking about men abusing women tend to just say "men" rather than specifying "some men", a lot of us get defensive.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)It's right up there with remarks about the characteristics of specific races, religions and genders you might read on Freep. So many folks seem to expect members of DU to treat everyone with fairness and that postings should be free of prejudice, and hypocrisy.
I admire their naivete, but we progressives are often just as mean-spirited and close-minded as any other group of humans.
"Men are," "Men do," "Why do men..." The list is endless.
If you're going to stereotype a gender, I think they should expect to be called on it.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Any more than most threads about racism tend to label all white people, or most threads about poverty label everyone who isn't poor. But in all cases you can count on some showing up and proclaiming their hurt feelings every time. I can only guess why some, instead of focusing on the issues and what to do and instead make it all about them.
You are right, discussions of racism do not necessarily label "all" white people. However, discussions of "white privilege" do. Its a phrase that is used to assert privilege for every single white person regardless of their circumstances. If you are white and homeless and about to die of cancer in the streets within minutes, you are still privileged under the label.
Discussions of poverty are more interesting. I do not think that all people who are not poor get labeled without reference to their individual characteristics unless they are actually wealthy.
It is true that anyone who is really rich is often labeled as a "fat cat" and "heartless" regardless of their actions. We see this in movies and shows that have the villains as unfeeling rich person. I think among the left, we even have that feeling of bias against all people (even if they are not personally evil) who through birth, luck, or invention are part of the current system of unequal wealth distribution regardless of his actions. I have some of those biases against people I have never met but I think it may have a more objective basis. Being rich is a more objective standard for participation in an unfair system. The rich are usually the winners. However, even there, our bias are not clear. People in this country and maybe people in general also have positive bias towards very successful people with celebrity or wealth.
Turning from the specific examples to the general, I think we would have less of these particular discussions of labels if discussions did not start with labeling words or posts tried to stick to the societal problem itself in a race and gender neutral manner to the extent it is possible. Sometimes it is not because the crime or incident is directly motivated by a gender or racial enmity. However, usually it is is possible.
Violence is bad. Domestic Violence is bad. Racism is bad. In an examination of the root causes of these topics, the discussion might focus on actually causes and solutions rather than discussions of trying to exclude or point directly at only certain races and genders as the defining parameters of the social problem. Gender and racial aspects of specific cases of violence or racism might actually be discussed with less risk of being derailed by trying to determine if a discussion of a societal problem by a specific poster using labeling words is a veiled attack on a specific race or and sex based on the poster's biases rather than the factors in the actual incident being discussed.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Your misunderstanding of what white privilege is explains a lot, though. No, denying that race and gender inequality exists will not magically make it go away. How can you focus on the problems if you pretend the problems don't exist in the first place?
Again, I agree with some of your statements but not your points.
I agree that, we should not deny that racism and inequality exist. I am directly affected by inequality and the current problems in the economic system for people over 50. I think inequality is the single biggest problem facing american society and the world. But thats just me.
With respect to violence, I have personally never been in a fight, did not join the army and would have been a consciouses objector if drafted in my day. Domestic violence in either direction is not one of my individual problems that I face in my current relationship which has lasted 25 years although I had some up and down relationships in my 20s. believe violence in this world both societal and individual is a significant problem the human race must overcome if we are to survive.
With respect to racism, I have been affected by racism against me in the past and certainly my ancestors were the victims of racial genocide. In parts of the world, I could be killed for just breathing while me. I do not think we should ignore racism, inequality, violence and all society problems. I just do not think that those problems should not be addressed by labels. The actual words "white privilege" are an attempt to do more than address the societal problem of racism that exists throughout all races in both our country and which has existed throughout human history. I think of it more as the problems caused by some aspects of human consciousness that causes us all (not just one group of people) to want to relate to a group and push bad characteristics on people who are not that group.
The use of group labels reinforces this rather than reduces this tendency and avoiding labeling words when discussing racism would probably lead to actual discussions rather than just pointing fingers.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Pretending that racism doesn't exist won't make racism go away. How is avoiding labeling supposed to work, exactly? Words have meaning. And how is avoiding pointing fingers supposed to work, exactly? Would that work for other things, too? Hey, lets just stop pointing the finger at corruption. Stop pointing the finger at global warming. Stop pointing the finger at crumbling infrastructure... I honestly don't get that. Your look away strategy for problem solving is puzzling.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Ugh. One problem with trying to discuss anything related to this issue is that you attack what I didn't write not what I wrote.
In what world did I say that racism does not exist. Find one shred of language that suggests that. I said, the best way to discuss racism might to discuss it without attacking other groups using loaded terms and labels. Then find a shred of language that suggests that we do not point at corruption. You got the pointing finger from one section of my post where I say that we need to address racism but we need to stop using language that points fingers at groups of people without addressing their individual characteristics. Words do in fact mean things. Attaching white or black to any problem adds implications that are then denied in these threads by the person adding the word. We have good words already that are not loaded.
"Racism" is a good word for actions against people or people based on their race. Institutional racism is a good term to discuss where society acts adversely against an individual because of his or her race. Describing racism against black people as examples of "privilege" of some other group who may or may not be successful in society and has individuals who have their own issues and problems stands the word "privilege" on its head since it is often used to discuss adverse societal affects that they do not encounter such as not being stopped by police on the street.
I have heard defenses of the term "white privilege" saying some intellectual sociologists use the term to define racism. However, this is not a sociologists forum and the term is a bad and divisive term to discuss problems in society since it is not a clean term. It is used precisely because of implications about "white" people as opposed to other people in the world as though racial injustice was just invented in this century in america. The history of the world in the present and the past is full of racial injustice from all groups.
In america, there are lots of places where black people face racial injustice most particularly in the justice system. However, thinking that these areas of racial injustice will be solved by trying to define this as privilege of others has a mixed message. It directs the reader of the term away from the racial injustice that affects black people towards a claim that the problem is the the failure of white people to accept they are privileged regardless of their actual societal privilege. You can see that in the next post where someone tried to say a homeless guy dying was privileged. Maybe I should have used a dead white person as an example. Is he privileged as well. It would be worse for a dead white person if he was a dead black person. Using the word privilege to describe people who are not privileged because they do not face some bad things that nature or society or luck throws at others stands the plain english meaning of the word privilege on its head.
It is not a case of ignoring problems in society. Addressing racial injustice whether through action or discussion is a good thing, it is the term and some of the implications that are now being used in the discussions on these sites that is inherently divisive. It seeks to get past problems by somehow cementing differences in place rather than work on uniting us on our common humanity. As a term, trying to label people does not invoke empathy, sympathy and unity. In fact labeling individuals as part of a group instead invokes or implies guilt or responsibility. I thought that the favored goal of progressive politics was to make a better world by fostering a common humanity, helping people see how our experiences are similar rather than different, and addressing societal problems together. However, maybe that was my mistake. It seems that the favored mechanism is to force group labels on individuals and say that society will only improve if you accept those labels although there is no real explanation of what people are supposed to do with their privilege. I guess you are supposed to give it up somehow, maybe insist to the police that they stop you when you are driving around. Personally, I favor actions to strengthen civil rights laws which do not label groups but make discrimination because of any labels illegal.
kcr
(15,315 posts)The favored goal of progressive politics is not to see how our experiences are similar, because they aren't. Yes, that is your mistake. There's nothing wrong with labels. In fact, they're important. And there is an explanation of what people are supposed to do with their privilege. Simply be aware of it. That doesn't mean insisting police stop you. That's ridiculous. But knowing that the police are a lot less likely to stop you and acknowledging that, is a part of acknowledging that privilege. That's it. That's all that means.
Well we are getting closer. However, in no manner did I say, suggest, imply that my "solution" is to "pretend" racism doesn't exist. My solutions really come in the form of civil rights laws and judicial actions as those laws affect society over time by adding to and modifying such laws and enforcement mechanisms. This is not pretending problems do not exist. Sometimes, you need public protests and outrage to motivate public opinion.
However, you are right that I think using some labels to define generic problems like racism are wrong if they are limited to one race. Further, I think talking about "privilege" when we are really talking about bias and prejudice turns language on its head.
You do not think so. That is the great thing about opinions. They are our own. I spent a lot of time giving my reasons for thinking such terms are divisive and not effective. I can give more that might be easier to understand.
If I say crime is a problem, probably everyone in this nation will nod their heads. Crime effects everyone. However, if I or anyone were to attach the word "black" to the word "crime" as a definitional matter you and everyone on this site would question their motives for attaching the label "black" since it only identifies one race with the societal problem "crime". I am sure that no matter what was said, it would be offensive or at least uncomfortable formulation to some or all people reading it.
It would add divisiveness no matter what anyone actually would say about the subject because it is capable of hiding a lot of different attitudes and motives. The same with attaching "white" or "jewish" or "arabic" or "asian" or any other label to discuss a problem as a definitional matter that pushes characteristics on individuals by labels and not actual individual characteristics. It is not as problematic to talk about the race of a person if you are agreeing with a specific instance formulated by the person actually affected by a problem. That point should be easy to understand. Everyone has an easier time when people talk about themselves and their problems and less or a problem if someone else is talking about you.
It is easier and does not have any implications to say to a white person that black people can face institutional racism in the justice system. if you are black, you are more likely to be sentenced to a longer term. Such a discussion talks about people who are being directly and adversely affected by the disparate treatment not making conclusions about the person you are telling it to. Regardless of the societal nature or luck factors that affect a white person, it only calls on him to recognize a problem some other person is facing. It does not run any risk of minimizing his own problems in relation to that problem or impose the person to accept some other persons opinion about them. That is the problem with discussing racism as "white" privilege to people who have their own problems rather than using the term racism as it affects the people who are actually adversely affected. Again, try it someday with your wife or friends. Tell them that the problem is that "they" dint recognize how depressed you are rather than telling your wife or friend that you are depressed. One phrasing calls for empathy, the other for guilt.
With regard to your statement that "acknowledging" white privilege" is all that is required That seems pretty simplistic and actually rather offensive. So I click my heels together whenever I encounter a society problem that faces me as an individual and say three times "At least I am not black because I am a privileged white person and it would be worse if I was black". Additionally, if I hear of racial injustice facing someone else, I have to click my heals together and say " that persons problems are really not the issue. The issue is that no matter what is happening in my life, my privilege is the real issue with the problem facing him or her all because I am a privileged person because I am white". In either case, then a miracle will happen, the seas will part and racism against all people who are not me will disappear. Well maybe what you mean by that is that if every white person in the country accepted such mantras societies problems would be solved. Is that what your suggestion of acknowledgment as the solution is. At that point will the seas open? Question, at that point would every white person still be privileged? Is privilege a permanent condition or is racism and disimilar treatment something we are trying to eliminate in its entirety?
Personally, I prefer active solutions to societal problems which are not as you asserted by pretending racial injustice does not exist. To your other point, I used the word similar, not identical for a reason. Again recognizing our common humanity builds empathy. Further I think empathetic movements that define their goals broadly go much further than movements that try to set out differences. In this regard, I am thinking of our movements against the vietnam war which recognized that black or white, the war was a problem that affects us all. Civil rights laws if they are good do not stop at race but attack division and disparate treatment on race gender disability and preference. This is recognizing that prejudice against all of these groups are similar and if you are in one group and not in another you have similar problems.
I think solutions that recognize our common humanity are more effective than laws that try to institutionalize differences between people (fighting for civil rights laws that protect all and are enforced) but you can have your own opinions. I think that those laws and those fights have led to real changes in society. Not the elimination of racial injustices but real victories.
Where are opinions might meet is that for society to change it has to recognize where racism, institutional racism and racial injustices exist. I think this is clearly one of your points and I totally agree. I just disagree that we obtain the broad support by attaching labels to define societal problems generically.
kcr
(15,315 posts)to address the actual point. I meant that acknowledging white privilege exists is all you have to do to with regard to your own privilege. You don't have to tell cops to pull you over. You don't have to click your heels, either. I did not mean that acknowledging white privilege is all that is needed, period. It is the first step but not an actual solution. White people who deny that privilege even exists are ignorant of institutionalized racism.
I still fail to see how active solutions can be implemented without labels. If you don't want to acknowledge that societal issues like crime and poverty will affect different groups differently, then none of your solutions will be very effective.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Although it clearly doesn't do him much good. Privilege is about systems, not individuals.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)kcr
(15,315 posts)47of74
(18,470 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,628 posts)Regardless of comments from the hear me roar crowd, society still consider women as the weaker sex. If a woman gives a man a thumping with a stereotypical rolling pin, most wonder what the cad did to deserve it. When roles are reversed, it's an inexcusable assault with a deadly weapon.
Had someone stepped into the elevator just as Rice's GF cold cocked him I doubt anyone would have called 911 and we would have heard nothing about it. The likely response would have been "feisty one, isn't she?". Men are expected to be able to take a good punch.
I'm not excusing Rice's actions by any stretch, but society does not see violence equally between the genders.
See my earlier reply here for perspective:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5509203
kcr
(15,315 posts)Nice. But you're not excusing Rice's actions by any stretch. Only trying to falsely equivocate. Unless she cold cocked him and laid him out unconscious and we missed that?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)They are not equivalent due to the history of abuse and discrimination suffered by women. Yes women can abuse men, but due to general physical differences, overarching historical and economic discrepancies, and the prevalence of man on woman violence, they are not the same thing. It's all about context. If they had been paying attention, they might have noticed that the Supreme Court just told me that my boss gets to decide about my birth control and I need to go out and buy my daughter some nail polish that changes color when exposed to date rape drugs to help her avoid being raped by an acquaintance because it is so fucking common. And now more BS with the NFL protecting abusers.
Women who abuse men are wrong. It is assault. They should be prosecuted. But sorry, I have no knowledge of the WNBA having a big problem with their stars assaulting men and the front office covering for them. No one I know worries too much about their sons being raped after the age of consent. I worry about my daughter being raped constantly, because one in three, ONE IN THREE women are raped. My sister. My best friend. I don't want it to be my daughter next. So when people want to talk about women abusing men in this context, it pisses me off. Are they paying attention to what is happening to women's rights these days? Do they care? Because we are under full attack.
lark
(23,094 posts)You have provided some much needed perspective. Don't know why some men are so defensive about this? Hit dogs yelp symdrome?
Anyway, 
to you, trumad.
tclambert
(11,085 posts)since the object of "Somebody else suffers that, too" is generally to distract the discussion away from an uncomfortable subject. Oftentimes, that will nip that distraction in the bud. The problem is, a determined distractor will then try to start an argument about what constitutes relevance, or argue that his new subject deserves to be talked about.
Yeah, it helps to have a referee who can say, "Objection sustained" and make the distractor shut up.
CountAllVotes
(20,868 posts)n/t
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)If the person leading the debate doesn't bring it up simply to mention it, somebody with a different agenda WILL, and in a way that more likely derails the wider discussion. So it's best to throw it in there, simply to have it out of the way of the ongoing discussion.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Having a heavy rainstorm debunks climate change.
One case of voter fraud, requires sweeping voter suppression laws enacted.
One black cop shooting a white teen proves that there is no lopside profiling of black teens.
Trying to debunk or minimize an overwhelming issued with the rare opposite occurance pisses me off too.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Every story on the Holocaust doesn't require an opposing opinion from a Holocaust denier. Nor does every show about cosmology require the input from a member of the Flat Earth Society.
From a statistical standpoint, women are the overwhelming victims of domestic violence. That's the truth. That doesn't mean that men aren't victimized. And that doesn't mean that one gender "asked for it" and the other didn't. Nor does it mean that all victims aren't equally deserving of our sympathy and assistance. It's a question of proportionality.
The problem is that news has always been titillated by the "man bites dog" story over the all-too-common "dog bites man."
But as the saying goes, "the plural of anecdote isn't data."
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)in some cases an attempt to minimize the issue, it may also be people speaking about the issue within the context of their own situations and/or knowledge. I read one thread earlier referring to a female on male abusive marriage written by the male participant. I saw no attempt on his part to be dismissive of the issue, simply adding his particular information to the overall discussion. Abuse of any type is wrong, I believe on that we all can agree, but we all see things with different eyes and we all bring different experiences and backgrounds to the discussion. I would hope that we as humans can be both tolerate and civll as others express their opinions based upon their perspective. We may not agree with them, but through discussion perhaps we can both learn from each other.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)I almost always refer to spousal abuse as women/man in no way trying to minimize in any way I don't go out of my way to stress one or the other, it is far more common that the victim will be a women. No intention whatsoever to minimize that fact.
I do agree though that some posters seem to be attempting this.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)While what you say is true for some, I'm not sure others might just be relieving ugly memories themselves that, face it,
Even in this day and age, most men do not like either admitting such or even talking about it...
Granted it's more than likely the poor me look at me too posts that pop up at theses times, but just maybe, perhaps having the issue of abuse being discussed helps them to open up and even if it's on this board, nameless faceless posts, maybe in some ways it makes them feel not so alone....
Abuse is abuse, no matter who's on the giving or receiving end, that said...
There are some on here that just love to stir the issue into a muddled mess, it's not possible though no matter how many times they try....maybe one can hijack the facts, but they can never hold unto the truth, even if it gets ignored for a time.....
merrily
(45,251 posts)I fully believe that most of the posts protesting feminism and/or most of the borderline racist posts come from them.
I am not including conservative Democrats under the rw label, either.
Not this time, anyway. 
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Men dont call the police as often for it, and since men tend to get in fights more often it is easier to cover up at the emergency room. Denying that it happens doesnt help any.
trumad
(41,692 posts)It's not the point of my Op
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)You know how Wolf Blitzer jumps in every time a Republican is caught doing something and mentions a Democrat as if both sides are the same.
merrily
(45,251 posts)against false equivalencies all the time.
Warpy
(111,245 posts)People who try to use statistical outliers to disprove a statistical norm bug the shit out of me.
The truth is that most abusive women use words, while abusive men use fists and do a lot more damage, both physically and emotionally.
The problem is that we don't know the number for abused men. There are men who claim to be abused if a wife reminds him to pick up the kids from daycare because she's working late. Henpecked, dontcha know? He might miss the kickoff. There are also men who are being abused, both emotionally and physically, who keep silent out of shame, the way women do.
They're just a hell of a lot less likely to end up in an ICU.
Not a Fan
(98 posts)Yes - these men are - in effect - denying the seriousness and prevalence of violence against women. They don't see it, or don't want o see it. There simply are men who see themselves as victims. They think men are routinely brutalized or abused by women. These types are also more likely to believe themselves to be victims of reverse racism. They see themselves as exploited.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)No, not in all cases. A few male posters have decided to post about their own experiences with DV with sensitivity and courage.
These men shouldn't be condemned or silenced just because a few assholes are using the current issue to disrupt.
trumad
(41,692 posts)But if you think that it's not a strategy by some...I think you're wrong.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I agree with you, I have seen those posts (not for the first or last time I'm sure) and that's why I called them assholes.
I just thought it would be okay to acknowledge the few decent guys in the hopes others won't pile on without reading first.
No worries.
trumad
(41,692 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Subtle or otherwise?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm a bit twitchy on the trigger finger today, my apologies.
I think I'll go for a walk.
trumad
(41,692 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You are still one of my favourite DU'ers for a reason! 
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)I also think, for the most part, it doesn't come from maliciousness, but privilege and ignorance.
We can do better than this. BE better than this.
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)But it isn't always. You are correct in that some of it comes from "privilege and ignorance". I have also found the same "privilege and ignorance" when it comes to discussing other forms of prejudice, which sometimes manifests as "the sin of omission". DV is, sadly, widespread in the GLBT community, rarely discussed in our OWN community and even rarer in mainstream areas.
"We can do better than this. BE better than this."
Nailed it! But, that doesn't surprise me.
hlthe2b
(102,228 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)Woman, man, child. Grown-up talking about when they were children.
Men or women in GLBT relationships, etc.
They should be able to talk about it, and post here, without needing your particular permission.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)both are no duh statements..
trumad
(41,692 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Egnever
(21,506 posts)color me shocked by your response.
Response to trumad (Original post)
Post removed
Kali
(55,007 posts)and they need ATTENTION NOW, DAMMIT!!!!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Hope that ain't the wrong answer, but it's mine.
IronLionZion
(45,430 posts)and I hope you never have to experience it or the consequences and subsequent shaming. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
I certainly didn't expect it.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Even though domeatic violence as we know it is almost exsclusibely the domain of men :/
moriah
(8,311 posts).... then you're sadly mistaken.
A man getting beaten up on by a woman? He'll get laughed out of court. Told to "be a man". And God forbid he admits it to any one of his male friends.
Do you know how difficult it is for a man to get a restraining order on a female stalker, compared to how easy it is to swear out at least a temporary restraining order in a DV situation for a woman? It's nearly impossible.
trumad
(41,692 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)kcr
(15,315 posts)No one is claiming men don't have challenges. It certainly doesn't help the challenges they do face by wasting time focusing on how horrible it is that everyone is focusing on how much trouble women have and leveling false accusations that they think men don't have equal challenges. Just a huge waste of time and energy.
moriah
(8,311 posts)That's what people bitch about.
Edit: Also, the OP was trivializing abuse of men by women by the very way he phrased it. Domestic abuse, no matter what the gender, is all bad, and shouldn't be trivialized by suggesting that it's so much easier for men who are beaten up by their partners. They get little emotional support at all when they disclose.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)
ReRe
(10,597 posts)Maybe. But it might be something more sinister. Might be a way of virtually abusing all women on DU and the hundreds or possibly thousands who read these boards everyday who AREN"T members. And yes, there are some women who can be just as verbally/physically abusive as men are to women. We all know that there aren't as many women abusers as men, but they are out there.
All of them are sadistic lost souls.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And the follow up post made it that much worse.
Just fucking wow.
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)...someone comes along and demonstrates, "yes, there is more than the bottom of the barrel!" You should see the thread about the male poster who told his story. Most people were supportive, but there were some real humdingers in there!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I used the alert feature for the first time ever in that one and I posted the results.
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)I'll pop back in there to see your post.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I don't think trumad was referring to that thread in his op.
kcr
(15,315 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I agree. I made it part of my alert. The jury didn't care.
But thanks for seeing things my way.
kcr
(15,315 posts)I wish I'd served on the jury for your alert.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)
Hobo
(757 posts)But since the OP seems to know what I was thinking, I bow to his all knowing thought. Just wanted to share my experience.
Hobo
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I think maybe the original post was talking about it within threads where the original post is about a man abusing a woman. That's kind of how I read it, at least.
I don't mean to speak for the original poster of this thread. But I will say I do agree with it to the extent that it occurs (far too often, imo) in threads that are not about that. Those kinds of posts can often turn into arguing and bickering because they distract from the original poster's intention of what s/he wanted to discuss.
I read your original post and I believe it was an excellent post. It moved me and made me more aware of those kinds of things.
I hope you are doing much better now Hobo. Have a good evening and a wonderful day tomorrow.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Been here a long time and I've seen posts like the one I described in my Op many times.
lupinella
(365 posts)DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)And whine
And self congratulations.
Out.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)had no idea that you were the truth master.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Deny and deflect.
Well....black folk do it too, sooooo... 
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Why not be against all types of abuse?
Yet, instead of talking about domestic abuse in a way that can help everyone, some people here will spend their entire day debating over statistics.
Im sorry, but you will get absolutely NOWHERE with this issue if you only care about and pay attention to half the problem.
trumad
(41,692 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)A person in an abusive relationship has it bad. Why play misery poker?
If you want to minimize the awful badness of violence against the menz, please use statistics rather than value judgments. You weren't there.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)"What bugs the shit out of me is how these no duh statements/posts pop up when there is a serious case being discussed like the Ray Rice incident."- could be taken to mean you don't consider abuse to men to be a serious issue.
Not saying I'm one of those people... but with all the word: 
that happens on this site... especially as of late, it is something to be mindful of.
trumad
(41,692 posts)But I have faith in my fellow DUers being able to distinguish that. ---errr as evident by the majority in this thread which agree with me.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)My guess is it's 1% sincerity, 99% false equivalency. And those 99 half-wits are unsurprising.
still_one
(92,150 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)on a message board of supposedly enlightened liberals who also all get woman are being exploited and abused, wouldn't it follow that to continually remind us of the reverse is a duh statement, as well?
I think the problem at DU is that people don't genuinely report these stories and raise these issues to solve them but they are only raised in the spirit of one group competing against the other.
The attacks on liberal men on this board just don't span the range of comments of reverse sexism or reverse abuse but liberal men are attacked even when they are in the process of defending feminism.
I'll leave it to you to guess the motives of someone who would not just object but become verbally abusive at liberal men who are offering a defense of feminism. It's not "Let me offer a counter interpretation". It's "You're pathetic for even trying and just another misogynist oppressor trying to keep women down". Now that is a combative stance of a competitor right out of the box on what is supposed to be a discussion board with a capital D.
My own personal feeling is that liberal men, because they are already more compliant toward feminist ideas, are possibly seen as an easy target for some of the junior "feminists" just looking to score an easy conquest or verbal beat down of a man, any man. And certainly targeting apologetic liberal men fearful of being labeled a misogynist would be an easy way to achieve that goal, as you can't make someone dance for you if they don't fear your judgement.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)in the act of being abusive toward him. But, those things often happen when men are being abusive to women. It is NOT the same. So, I think they do bring it up just to be assholes, to be honest. They REFUSE to get it, because they don't like being told that smacking women around is a bad thing. It says a lot about them, imo.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)They just want to make it look like it's the same for both parties, so they can brush it away.
